posted
Eh, well, perhaps not on a predominantly religious board. Have some music instead. I particularly recommend 'Katiusha' and the 'Red October Hymn'.
[ March 15, 2005, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
pshaw... Next you'll be telling me that holy water doesn't kill vampires.
* Cuz someone deleted the comment made in response to the initial posting that the Vatican finds the novel to be disrespectful. And everything which follows won't make any sense without it.
posted
In case you honestly aren't aware of it, the humor in your news item relies on the assumption that the Catholic Church is also based on a work of fiction. Catholics on this board may not agree, and are therefore unlikely to find your implicit observation funny.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if it comes right to it, I'm not very fond of puns, myself. But I don't call people trolls for posting the durned things.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, don't play dumb. You know very well why puns aren't the same as Polish jokes. Give us some credit for intelligence, 'k? Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Being "not fond of" something is very much different than being told that your most deeply held beliefs are false and worthy of mocking. While I personally think that the word "troll" is thrown around with the same reckless disregard as is the word "homophobe," I can see how someone could call that "trolling."
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, ok, you've got a point. I must admit it didn't occur to me that feelings could get hurt - I have a hard time remembering that people actually believe this stuff. I'll edit it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
---but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be minimally respectful.
Which begs the question: what is minimally respectful of others beliefs, here or in RL? When do you cross the line? Beats me.
Posts: 327 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Different people consider different things "minimally respectful." I was surprised to discover, for example, that some people on this board find the phrase "making Baby Jesus cry" unacceptably glib. Some people consider it highly offensive to spell "God" with the "o." *shrug* So you shoot for a baseline, but it's moving all the time. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I always thought that was a funny phrase, and I have used it a couple of times. I guess I should be more sensitive.
-o-
KoM, I left open the possibility that I misinterpreted your intent as being different from what I perceived in your post. I'm just telling you how it came across to me. If I read you correctly, then thank you for removing it.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some Orthodox Catholic, some (possibly ultra)Orthodox Jewish, and some Muslim sects use G*d (or similar) or a euphemism because they interpret "Thou shalt not use the Name of the Lord thy God in vain." to be far more restrictive on proper usage than the interpretation accepted by most Peoples of the Book.
For them, eg if one writes the word God on anything, the object must thenceforth be treated with utmost respect. If there is an incident -- even accidental -- which mars that utmost respect, then a ritual of purification&rededication must be performed. And if the object must be disposed of, then there must be a proper "burial"rite performed. ie Abuse, misuse, or accidental use of God creates a lot of work and expense, as well as being a serious religious sin.
posted
Darn.. missed it. What was the controversy? I'm not religious.. I promise I won't get offended! Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If an adult told you he believed in Santa Claus, would you automatically take his word for it, or would you suspect a leg-pull?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a man told you your mom was loose, would that mean she was?
Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it isn't true...nor does it mean it isn't.
But implying something about anothers belief, in either their family or their religion ( ), is rude....and you know it.
Feel free to disbelieve anything you wish....but don't be suprised if people dislike you and your agenda when you try to "prove" their core beliefs wrong.
Particularily when all you have to work with is irony.
You have made that point more than once here, so don't play stupid.
posted
Kwea, Scott asked me a question about my thought processes. I attempted to answer it by drawing an analogy to his own. If he doesn't like the way I think, he's at liberty to try to change it or to ignore me. But if he's going to be insulted when I answer a question honestly - then he shouldn't have asked the question. What should I do, lie?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, you don't have to lie, but there is a thing called tact. You may be too young to have learned it yet, but there *are* ways of discussing opinions and things that are controversial among people without coming off as rude, obnoxious, or unaccountably arrogant.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this case, the answer would be "Because I find religious beliefs so unutterably ridiculous as to verge on insanity." I leave it to your genius to put this diplomatically. I am not being sarcastic, I am genuinely curious as to how you would achieve this.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Polite and truthful, but not to the point. The question was not 'Why do you not believe?' It was 'Why do you find it hard to recall that others believe?' You would answer the first one, right enough. The second requires a bit more explanation of the thought process.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then, "because their beliefs don't work at all for me, so I automatically discount them without really thinking about it." Still truthful, yet not insulting to the intelligent people who hold the beliefs.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Fishtail, that still makes it sound like a polite disagreement - I might say that about Republican opinions on welfare, say. I think they're wrong, but not actively insane. This is understating to the point of lying.
And AntiCool, my opinion was directly asked for.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
King of Men is the atheist equivalent of those religious people that say things like:
"I'll pray for your soul and that you'll eventually see the light and accept Jesus into your heart"
or (and i did know a religious person that said this) "I'm sad that Marci hasn't accepted Jesus, but the fact of it is she will go to Hell when she dies, so she'll see then."
KoM, you give us less militant (read: flat-out nasty) atheists a bad name. Cool it with the insults which you *know* are not going over well here.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole point *is* to have a polite disagreement, KoM. Willfully trying to do otherwise, as you seem intent upon, would then classify, I'm sorry to say, as "trolling." Being tactful/avoiding blatantly and uncaringly insulting people is the goal. Or at least I thought so when you asked how to state your opinions politely.
Why would you *not* wish to have a polite conversation, whether in agreement or disagreement? Going on like you are, with deliberately inflammatory adjectives, does nothing to help promote discourse. Or haven't you figured that out yet?
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then, "because their beliefs don't work at all for me, so I automatically discount them without really thinking about it." Still truthful, yet not insulting to the intelligent people who hold the beliefs.
What I like about this approach is that it correctly puts the blame where it belongs. Not on the believer for believing, but on the SPEAKER, for his failure of empathy.
To be clear: your lack of belief is not what I am characterizing as a failure. I don't know what, if anything, I believe myself. It's your inability to remember/understand the fact that others do.
We all have such areas where our capacity to understand is deficient. One such area for me is those who say they are comfortable with the idea of dying. I generally admit that not being able to understand this viewpoint I don't share is a failing on my part.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What they're trying to say, KoM, is that you're spending too much time trying to find polite ways to say "I think you're insane," and perhaps not enough time not saying that. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this case I can see how KoM would feel that he was asked for plain language, and he provided it. The thing is, 'plain language' is subjective, and he could have still couched his words differently and have been sufficiently understood.
What it really comes down to is what a person's goal is. If it is to be 100% understood without any margin for misinterpretation, the person will definitely use different language than if their goal is either persuasiveness or harmonious human relationships. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a little of each in favor of the other(s). By stating the bald-faced, absolute truth of your feelings with all it's vigor and vim you are compromising any hope of persuasion and/or peace. If you want peace, frequently you will compromise the need to get your feelings across with as much force as possible.
I've found that if I lose my audience with harsh words and forceful opinions, then I undermine my ability to be persuasive at ANY time in the future. If I favor peace over integrity, I run the risk of being considered a hypocrite when my actions 'appear' to conflict with my previously inarticulated values. If I try too hard/contrive situations in which to persuade, I run the risk of being preachy.
You can absolutely find a different way to state, "Because I find religious beliefs so unutterably ridiculous as to verge on insanity." KoM chose to sacrifice persuasion and peace for absolute integrity. If that's what he wanted to do, then he should not alter the text at all. Just as long as he realizes the result will be a bad taste in people's mouths and an avoidance of his opinions on the subject in the future.
You can do and say what you want, you just have to put up with the natural consequences that follow.
posted
I think there is such a thing as taking empathy too far; at the risk of once more being accused of trolling, I see no value in empathising with the motives or beliefs of, say, slave owners.
quote:The whole point *is* to have a polite disagreement, KoM.
The question was on my thought processes. In order to answer that honestly, I'm going to have to say what I am thinking. And I'm sorry, but my internal dialogue is nowise in polite disagreement with religious beliefs. Perhaps that was an unfortunately chosen phrase; 'slight disagreement' or 'difference of opinion' might have been better. Hence my example : On the subject of welfare, reasonable men of good will may hold different opinions; that is the sort of disagreement I see your formulation as implying.
It is possible that the polite option would have been to ignore comrade Scott's question entirely, lest his feelings be hurt.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, cool. They even have that song you hear them singing in The Hunt for Red October and Enemy at the Gates. I didn't know it was the Soviet National Anthem.
posted
KoM, I respect your intelligence and I can usually understand the motives behind your disdain for religion. Where I find that we part paths is in the perception of the usefullness of religion. The adherence to and sense of security provided by religion dovetail with our search for purpose. This is no different than any other psychological need that humans experience. Your personal experience/psyche may have no need for such fulfillment but that doesn't mean that others don't. If you wish to view religion as a tool, the problem lies not with its original purpose but with its ability to be wielded with savage intent.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ralphie-- stop doing that thing where you say what I was going to say. Just. . . sit over there and drink your beer, you wino. . .
Deconstruction of KoM's explanation:
quote:Kwea, Scott asked me a question about my thought processes. I attempted to answer it by drawing an analogy to his own.
The answer given is as follows:
quote:If an adult told you he believed in Santa Claus, would you automatically take his word for it, or would you suspect a leg-pull?
I'm not satisfied with this answer because it's defensive, and shows a real lack of self-criticism.
But I'll play my part, and answer you: it depends on the adult and the context of the statement. I would either laugh and hug him as a fellow-Father Christmas adherent, or I'd believe him utterly.
What does his belief in Santa Claus cost me? Why should I think that he's trying to trick me? What a sad world it would be, if I went around thinking that people didn't REALLY believe the things that they say they believe in.
What a pathetic human being I would be if I looked at every man with a cynical eye.
quote: If he doesn't like the way I think, he's at liberty to try to change it or to ignore me. But if he's going to be insulted when I answer a question honestly - then he shouldn't have asked the question.
:grin: How am I supposed to know whether or not I'm going to like the answer to an unasked question? As a physicist, maybe you're privy to some. . . I dunno, some oracular quantum response. . . but trust me, wannabe-writers don't have this capability.
Heck, even REAL writers don't have this ability.
[/quote]What should I do, lie?[/quote]
No-- but remember, honesty and civility CAN walk hand in hand. Don't buy the lie that personal honesty gives you the right to belittle people's beliefs. It doesn't make you wise, or intelligent-- it makes you annoying.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think there is such a thing as taking empathy too far; at the risk of once more being accused of trolling, I see no value in empathising with the motives or beliefs of, say, slave owners.
Then you would have no chance of ever convincing a slaveowner of voluntarily relenquishing his ownership of slaves.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
